Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT/Krugman: Getting to Crazy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 12:35 PM
Original message
NYT/Krugman: Getting to Crazy
I particularly liked this passage:

A number of commentators seem shocked at how unreasonable Republicans are being. “Has the G.O.P. gone insane?” they ask.

Why, yes, it has. But this isn’t something that just happened, it’s the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades. Anyone surprised by the extremism and irresponsibility now on display either hasn’t been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye.


Getting to Crazy


By PAUL KRUGMAN


Published: July 14, 2011



There aren’t many positive aspects to the looming possibility of a U.S. debt default. But there has been, I have to admit, an element of comic relief — of the black-humor variety — in the spectacle of so many people who have been in denial suddenly waking up and smelling the crazy.

A number of commentators seem shocked at how unreasonable Republicans are being. “Has the G.O.P. gone insane?” they ask.

Why, yes, it has. But this isn’t something that just happened, it’s the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades. Anyone surprised by the extremism and irresponsibility now on display either hasn’t been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye.

And may I say to those suddenly agonizing over the mental health of one of our two major parties: People like you bear some responsibility for that party’s current state.

Let’s talk for a minute about what Republican leaders are rejecting.

President Obama has made it clear that he’s willing to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts, and includes draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility. These are extraordinary concessions. As The Times’s Nate Silver points out, the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average American voter prefers — in fact, if anything, they’re a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!

Yet Republicans are saying no. Indeed, they’re threatening to force a U.S. default, and create an economic crisis, unless they get a completely one-sided deal. And this was entirely predictable.

First of all, the modern G.O.P. fundamentally does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency — any Democratic presidency. We saw that under Bill Clinton, and we saw it again as soon as Mr. Obama took office.

As a result, Republicans are automatically against anything the president wants, even if they have supported similar proposals in the past. Mitt Romney’s health care plan became a tyrannical assault on American freedom when put in place by that man in the White House. And the same logic applies to the proposed debt deals.

Put it this way: If a Republican president had managed to extract the kind of concessions on Medicare and Social Security that Mr. Obama is offering, it would have been considered a conservative triumph. But when those concessions come attached to minor increases in revenue, and more important, when they come from a Democratic president, the proposals become unacceptable plans to tax the life out of the U.S. economy.

Beyond that, voodoo economics has taken over the G.O.P.

Supply-side voodoo — which claims that tax cuts pay for themselves and/or that any rise in taxes would lead to economic collapse — has been a powerful force within the G.O.P. ever since Ronald Reagan embraced the concept of the Laffer curve. But the voodoo used to be contained. Reagan himself enacted significant tax increases, offsetting to a considerable extent his initial cuts.

And even the administration of former President George W. Bush refrained from making extravagant claims about tax-cut magic, at least in part for fear that making such claims would raise questions about the administration’s seriousness.

Recently, however, all restraint has vanished — indeed, it has been driven out of the party. Last year Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, asserted that the Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue — a claim completely at odds with the evidence — and also declared that this was “the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.” And it’s true: even Mr. Romney, widely regarded as the most sensible of the contenders for the 2012 presidential nomination, has endorsed the view that tax cuts can actually reduce the deficit.

Which brings me to the culpability of those who are only now facing up to the G.O.P.’s craziness.

Here’s the point: those within the G.O.P. who had misgivings about the embrace of tax-cut fanaticism might have made a stronger stand if there had been any indication that such fanaticism came with a price, if outsiders had been willing to condemn those who took irresponsible positions.


Read full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
markpkessinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-15-11 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Saw this thought provoking comment to Krugman's piece
Edited on Fri Jul-15-11 08:14 PM by markpkessinger
Not sure if I fully agree with the writer's prescription, but it's hard to argue with his diagnosis.

5.Fred Drumlevitch
Tucson, Arizona
July 15th, 2011
1:22 am



No, it's no surprise that Republicans demonstrate irresponsibility, extremism, or crazy. Nor is it surprising (though it remains disappointing) that Obama has so significantly acquiesced. Previously, his weak initial positions, unjustified concessions, and ultimate capitulations seemed to indicate: at best, a serious failure to understand successful negotiating strategy; more likely, an unwillingness to be a confrontational African-American; or most distressingly, his catering of a moveable feast for the banking, corporate, and military-industrial interests that'll support any politician who'll deliver the goods.

With few exceptions, current Republicans are vigorous proponents of selfishness, economic injustice, and Social Darwinism, all neatly rationalized and euphemized, of course. To add insult to injury, Republican ideology is largely responsible for our current mess. A "centrist" position even halfway towards unsound, unjust Republicanism will inevitably be wrong and highly unjust. A contemporary "centrist" is more right-wing than Nixon was 40 years ago.

Obama may believe that such "centrism" is now more politically astute than his 2008 positions (and current opponents), but he is badly mistaken about his proper role, and the costs to this nation will include a multitude of added hardships and reduced opportunities for the middle and lower classes, plus the effects of knowing that a rare chance for progressive change was squandered. Already present is an alienation from politics for many who believed his 2008 promises. Most worrisome is the increased likelihood that reactionary forces will acquire even more power, either incrementally via right-leaning pseudo-centrism, or as the only supposed alternative to our current national decline.

A progressive challenge is needed. I say: Bernie Sanders or Raul Grijalva for President; Paul Krugman or Elizabeth Warren for Treasury Secretary; Andrew Bacevich for Defense … . Other nominations, anyone?

Recommended by 569 Readers


(Emphasis added).

I would add that the emphasized part of the quote is a very succinct way of saying something I've tried to argue for months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC